Characterizing and Mitigating Sensor Generated Spatial Correlations in Airborne Hyperspectral Imaging Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hyperspectral imaging (HSI), the spatial contribution to each pixel is non-uniform and extends past the traditionally square spatial boundaries designated by the pixel resolution, resulting in sensor-generated blurring effects. The spatial contribution to each pixel can be characterized by the net point spread function, which is overlooked in many airborne HSI applications. The objective of this study was to characterize and mitigate sensor blurring effects in airborne HSI data with simple tools, emphasizing the importance of point spread functions. Two algorithms were developed to (1) quantify spatial correlations and (2) use a theoretically derived point spread function to perform deconvolution. Both algorithms were used to characterize and mitigate sensor blurring effects on a simulated scene with known spectral and spatial variability. The first algorithm showed that sensor blurring modified the spatial correlation structure in the simulated scene, removing 54.0%–75.4% of the known spatial variability. Sensor blurring effects were also shown to remove 31.1%–38.9% of the known spectral variability. The second algorithm mitigated sensor-generated spatial correlations. After deconvolution, the spatial variability of the image was within 23.3% of the known value. Similarly, the deconvolved image was within 6.8% of the known spectral variability. When tested on real-world HSI data, the algorithms sharpened the imagery while characterizing the spatial correlation structure of the dataset, showing the implications of sensor blurring. This study substantiates the importance of point spread functions in the assessment and application of airborne HSI data, providing simple tools that are approachable for all end-users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".